Mediaboss Marketing

Were past the point of shifting blame. We know who gave us the presidency of Donald Trump, and it wasnt Hillary Clinton or Jill Stein or James Comey.

The culprit was democracy.

Even if you defend democracy on the grounds that Trump lost the popular vote, its still a lame argument. After all, what kind of sensible political system generates 63 million votes for a thuggish incompetent to become its supreme leader?

Democracy was rarely an exercise in smooth sailing. Now, this.

The choice of Mr. Trump, a man so signally lacking in the virtues, abilities, knowledge and experience to be expected of a president, has further damaged the attractions of the democratic system, wrote an exceedingly glum Martin Wolf in the Financial Times this week. The soft power of democracy is not what it was. It has produced Mr. Trump as leader of the worlds most important country. It is not an advertisement.

Wolf isnt wrong, of course. If General Electric had gone bonkers and installed Trump as CEO, the smart money wouldve deserted the company, fearing for its future. Yet whats to stop Trump from doing far more damage as president?

In an interview with Vox, political scientist Larry Bartels said:

History clearly demonstrates that democracies need parties to organize and simplify the political world. But parties dont make the fundamental problems of democratic control disappear; they just submerge them more or less successfully. When professional politicians are reasonably enlightened and skillful and the rules and political culture let them do their job, democracy will usually work pretty well. When not, not.

Democracy is not working pretty well in the U.S. Still, while there may be no reason to grant Trump himself patience, the democratic system itself has earned some.

Shashi Tharoor, a longtime United Nations official who is now a member of the Indian parliament, wrote in an email:

Every system of government produces uneven results: There have been wise monarchs and feckless ones, capable benign dictators and incompetent ruthless ones, brilliant statesmen in democracies and people who owed their leadership positions to luck (the weakness of the alternatives) or merely inoffensiveness (the least unacceptable candidate). . . .

The strength of democracies is that because their leadership emerges from the will of the public as a whole, the system has a way of accommodating to them and very often, blunting their worst mistakes. Undemocratic systems have nowhere else to turn, and no established way of making the turn. So however flawed individual leaders may be, the self-correcting mechanisms built into democracy limit how much damage they can do.

The nations intelligence bureaucracies and news media are already shaking the foundation of the Trump presidency, leak by damaging leak. Courts are constraining some of the White Houses baser impulses. Democratic and civil society opposition is fierce, and has been joined by a small but intellectually potent cohort of principled conservatives. Inflection points, from the scheduled testimony next week of former FBI director James Comey to the midterm elections in 2018, present opportunities to educate the public and strengthen resistance. Whether anything can induce Trumps Republican enablers to abandon him is unknown.

If democracy produces a renewed commitment to democracy, Harvard historian Jill Lepore said in an email, democracy is working.

In his book The Confidence Trap, political scientist David Runciman pointed to the 1970s as an era in which democracy seemed to be marching haplessly toward failure, yet turned out to be gaining strength. In an interview with me last year he said:

Apparently the Chinese leadership is enjoying watching Trumps rise, because it seems to confirm all their suspicions of democracy: Its hucksterism plus stupidity. But in 1974 the Soviet leadership thought Watergate showed that democracy was finished. How could it survive such a scandal?

It survived, of course, and even thrived, eventually grinding down the Soviet Union. A similar emergence from the Trumpian ashes is possible. But it is not assured. Wolf is correct to worry that democracy everywhere is undermined by Trump anywhere. Yet with profound exceptions, democracy has been very good both to Americans and the world. Both may yet rally to the cause.

Francis Wilkinson writes editorials on politics and U.S. domestic policy for Bloomberg View.

Go here to read the rest:
Democracy faces enemy within - Fairfield Daily Republic

Washington Post

Al Green: 'This is about the democracy ' Washington Post June 7, 2017 2:47 PM EDT - Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.) says President Trump has obstructed justice and calls to draft articles of impeachment. (Reuters). June 7, 2017 2:47 PM EDT - Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.) says President Trump has obstructed justice and calls ...

Originally posted here:
Al Green: 'This is about the democracy ' - Washington Post

Janine Jackson interviewed Maria Luisa Mendona about Brazils presidential crisis for theJune 2, 2017, episodeof CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

1. CounterSpin170602Mendonca - fair.org

2. MP3 Link

Janine Jackson: When Brazils elected president Dilma Rousseff was ousted last year by political opponents in what many called a parliamentary coupas she was impeached, ostensibly for corruption, after being cleared by a special prosecutorsome US media presented the fight as the people versus the president. Politicians know how to read society pretty well, and they can sense that the people want her out, a think tank source was quoted in the New York Times. The deep unpopularity and evident corruption of Rousseffs opponents, including current President Michel Temerrecently highlighted with smoking-gun tape recordingsnow have the Times suggesting that Brazils problems have to do with it being a turmoil-prone nation.

Maria Luisa Mendona: If you dismantle basic services, that is not good for the economy. But, of course, this is the mantra that mainstream media use.

Were joined now by Maria Luisa Mendona. Shes coordinator of the Network for Social Justice and Human Rights in Brazil, and director of the Feminist Alliance for Rights at the Center for Womens Global Leadership at Rutgers University. She joins us now by phone from New Jersey. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Maria Luisa Mendona.

Maria Luisa Mendona: Thank you very much.

JJ: Well, maybe its too simple to say, but the latest scandal, involving tapes of Temer and former Sen. Aecio Neves talking about bribes with the head of the food empire JBSthey lend credence to what many said, that one of the real purposes of impeachment was to stop investigation into just those sorts of actions.

MLM: Yes, because there were actually no charges of corruption against President Dilma. They accused her of using a practice in dealing with the federal budget that was a very common practice, used by all presidents before her, so they had to come up with an excuse to impeach her, and thats why we called this a parliamentary coup.

And the main reasons for the impeachment were, first of all, to stop investigations of corruption; now we have the most corrupt politicians in power, that are facing very serious accusations of corruption. And also to implement austerity measures, cuts in social programs, dismantling the pension system, labor laws. Those changes were rejected by voters, so the only way for them to implement those measures was to impeach President Dilma and establish an illegitimate government, and this is what we have now in Brazil.

JJ: Well, let me read you this from just over a week ago, May 19, the New York Times Simon Romero:

Just a few days ago, Brazil seemed to be turning a corner. The stock market was soaring. Bankers were cheering. The nations cutthroat lawmakers were lining up to curb spending. Inflation had been tamed.

Brazil, it appeared, was finally on the mend.

Then, in a matter of hours, it all started falling apart.

So cheering bankers and cutting spending is Brazil being on the mend, in this view, and its only evidence of corruption, when that spoils it, that then we have instability. Youre saying quite the opposite of that, that in fact it was these austerity measures that have been driving public protests.

MLM: Yes, exactly. I dont understand why not giving job security and dismantling the pension system, retirement plansI dont understand how that would create a more stable society. And even for the economy, if you dismantle basic services, that is not good for the economy. But, of course, this is the mantra that mainstream media use, and we hear this over and over again.

JJ: Yes, a more recent piece talked about how the Brazilian economy has not responded as vigorously to Mr. Temers proposed austerity measures as his supporters had hoped. Well, yes, I guess thats one way of putting it.

So a number of things have driven protests, but then, the government response to protests has been especially repressive, has it not?

MLM: Yes. We have seen severe repression. And just about a week ago, there was a large demonstration in the capital, Brasilia, and Temer actually called the army forces to occupy the city. And several people were hurt, there were shots with rubber bullets, but also one person was shot by the police. And also, in the countryside, there have been dozens of killings of peasants, and just also last week, there was a massacre in the state of Par in the Amazon, and ten peasants were killed. So we have been seeing increasing repression in the countryside and also in urban areas.

JJ: Lets talk about going forward. US media outlets tell a pretty crude story about Brazil, in a way. Its, you know, they had this previously corrupt or malfeasant government, and now the new ones corrupt too; its as though theres just a cultural tendency toward chaos. And it tends to skip right over what kind of progress people are asking for. The protests that were seeing right now are not just anti-Temer; theyre really pro-democracy protests.

MLM: Yes, exactly. People are demanding direct elections, and theyre also demanding Temer to stop those measures that would undermine workers rights, basic rights. Those are the main demands.

And its very important for people to know that, because of media manipulation in Brazil, the majority of people, they dont really understand the reasons for the impeachment. There were no accusations of corruption against President Dilma, they couldnt find any case against her. So they used something that was very technical, that most people didnt understand. It was a mechanism that she was delaying payments from the federal budget to public banks in order to subsidize interest rates for low-income housing and for agriculture. And those types of mechanisms have been used for decades in all previous governments.

But most people dont even understand the reason for the impeachment, and of course, the mainstream media, also, they dont talk about this. So the idea is that there was this scandal in Brazil, and the only reason for the economy to improve was to get rid of President Dilma. So that was the message that Brazilian society was targeted with, there was this message saying that the only way to improve the country was to have a change in government. And that, of course, is undermining democracy, because millions of people voted for her. She was elected and re-elected. So even if we dont agree with her policies, we cannot just impeach a president because we dont agree with her policies. You need to have a specific crime that would justify the impeachment. Thats why we call this a parliamentary coup.

JJ: Well, let me just ask you, finally, is there concern that even if Temer steps down or is removed, that what might happen next might be something other than direct elections?

MLM: Yes, exactly. So one possibility is that the Brazilian congress would choose the next president, but two-thirds of congressmembers have also been facing corruption charges. So thats why we have been seeing large demonstrations asking for direct elections. I think this is the only way to restore democracy in Brazil.

JJ: Weve been speaking with Maria Luisa Mendona of the Network for Social Justice and Human Rights in Brazil, and the Feminist Alliance for Rights at the Center for Womens Global Leadership at Rutgers University. Maria Luisa Mendona, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

MLM: Thank you very much.

Subscribe: iTunes | Android |

Originally posted here:
'This Is the Only Way to Restore Democracy in Brazil' - FAIR

By Mai'a K. Davis Cross By Mai'a K. Davis Cross June 7 at 9:15 AM

Maia K. Davis Cross is the Edward W. Brooke professor of political science at Northeastern University. She is also a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of The Politics of Crisis in Europe.

It may seem that the June 8 general election in the United Kingdom puts Britains exit from the European Union on solid democratic ground. In fact, however, this is only the latest stage in a deeply problematic saga that has been anything but democratic.

Beyond the fact that former prime minister David Cameron promised a Brexit vote only as a desperate measure to stay in power in 2015, relying on a popular referendum as the sole determinant of the U.K.s status in the E.U. was a bad course of action.

Political scientists have long acknowledged that referendums are a poor gauge of voters actual preferences. Electorates are especially vulnerable to manipulation when complex issues are reduced into a simple yes or no question. Results often come down to which side has more money and persuasive marketing. This was certainly true in the case of the Brexit vote. The Leave side mischaracterized and even lied about the nature of the E.U. and the U.K.s role in it. And we now know that the same company that used personal data to individualize propaganda and fake news in President Trumps campaign Cambridge Analytica was paid to work for the Leave side.

The undemocratic nature of the process goes even deeper. First, there is no legal precedent in the U.K. system for making major, constitutional decisions in this way. With no single, written constitution, British governance since the 17th century has been based firmly in the supremacy of Parliament. Although Parliament did authorize the 2015 European Union Referendum Act, nothing in either the act or U.K. law stipulated that the referendum would be binding. Despite this, the referendum was used to circumvent Parliament, and it took a lawsuit for the Supreme Court to finally grant members of Parliament the right to vote on invoking Article 50. But by then, it was more than seven months after the fact, and it had become politically impossible for Parliament to vote against the already questionable referendum results.

Second, there was the simple 50 percent threshold. It is hard to imagine any other country in the E.U. using such a low-bar decision for such a high-stakes question. For example, the French Constitution states that France is in the E.U., and the Italian Constitution forbids abolishing international treaties with a popular vote. They would have to actually change their constitutions no easy feat before a vote on membership could even take place, and their constitutional courts would still be able to block it.

Finally, British Prime Minister Theresa May who only inherited her position from Cameron has been on shaky ground in her pursuit of a hard Brexit. The simplistic language of the referendum said nothing about the nature of the withdrawal. May did not even support the Leave campaign before the vote. Now she repeatedly echoes the pro-Brexit United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in speeches even though that far-right party has all but evaporated. Since triggering Article 50, May has continued to sideline Scotland and Northern Ireland, both of which voted to remain. And she is still only willing to pay lip service to Parliament, giving it an up-or-down vote only on the final text of the withdrawal agreement a vote she has vowed to ignore if it doesnt go her way.

Since May was never publicly elected as prime minister, her surprise call for a general election might seem to allow for some kind of democratic mandate. After all, Brexit is the most significant change in the U.K.s global role since the end of its empire. But Mays motives are best explained by the numbers: Data experts thought that she had a better chance to win now than in two years.

And yet, like Camerons gamble on Brexit, the snap election is backfiring. The dramatic loss of support that May has already experienced, especially in the face of a weak opponent, makes her approach even less legitimate. The only way to start reducing Britains democratic deficit would be for her party to lose. A coalition of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, for instance, would bring Parliament back into the process, and this would bode much better for British democracy as Brexit plays out.

The E.U., by contrast, has been remarkably fair in dealing with Brexit all along. From Camerons first announcement, E.U. leaders were willing to work with the British, giving ground on core issues such as immigration and exemption from the principle of an ever closer Union. When that didnt work, the E.U. then made it clear that it would negotiate its side by taking into account both member-state and E.U. citizens preferences and embracing democratic deliberation and transparency in the terms of the withdrawal agreement.

Indeed, the democratic deficit will only deepen when the U.K. actually leaves the E.U. Despite Brexit, the British will always need to work closely with the E.U. But when they no longer have a vote in E.U. governance and cannot even sit at the decision-making table in Brussels, they will truly experience what it feels like to follow rules that they do not make. Brexit may have been envisioned as a means of restoring democracy and sovereignty to the British people, but that is far from what is actually happening.

Original post:
Don't be fooled by the UK election: There's nothing democratic about Brexit - Washington Post

Exciting to see so many people filing to run for office. (See Candidates file for November election by Catherine Krummey, Bothell-Kenmore Reporter, May 22)

Our democracy works best when more of us participate. Our representatives and senators need to hear what matters to us. For example, the health care bill that just passed the house is being rewritten in the Senate. Our stories about the importance of health insurance coverage need to be shared with Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. They will use these stories to make sure no one loses their health care.

This is important since the bill that passed in the House would cause millions of Americans to lose their insurance. The changes to the Medicaid program will especially harm children, the elderly and those with disabilities. So pick up the phone or a pen and participate in our democracy by contacting our senators. You can help make a difference for millions of Americans!

Willie Dickerson,

Snohomish

See the original post:
Democracy works best when more participate - Kirkland Reporter